Validate Mogrt Brand Kit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful non-obvious boundaries: 'never reads font inventories, image pixels, or writes files,' which clarifies exactly what this validation does and does not inspect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral boundary statement earns its place without bloating the description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Together with the annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers safety, intent, and when to invoke this validation step. It does not detail what happens on failed validation, but the output schema handles return information, so this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters including the brand_kit object's properties. The description adds only contextual framing ('operator-approved', 'recipe use') rather than parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('validate'), resource ('operator-approved local MOGRT brand kit'), and usage context ('before using it in a template or batch preview'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/preview/publish-style MOGRT tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: before using a brand kit in a template or batch preview. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.